Was Washington a Tyrant, Too?

Okay, so “tyrant” may not be as appropriate a word to use as when one describes Lincoln (“Great Emancipator,” indeed).

Consider, however, the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. In brief, because Congress approved of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal policy (which depended on an increase in the size of the federal government), it taxed carriages and whiskey. Hamilton wanted to consolidate and then fund the national debt, and increased taxes were necessary. Of course, whiskey was a staple on the frontier, and was used as a form of currency. So the whiskey tax negatively affected farmers and frontiersmen, neither of whom could afford the tax.

And anyway, even if they could afford it, wasn’t the government stealing their money? Of course it was. Who cares if someone can "afford" a tax? That's not the point, and it never should be.

Anyway, the western frontiersmen refused to turn over their hard-earned property, a U.S. Marshal showed up to demand payment, and some liberty-minded men attacked a tax-collector’s home (these sorts of things happen when the government steals from its people). One thing led to another, and as Kevin Gutzman writes in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, Washington “became the only sitting president ever to lead an army in person when he rode out toward the rebels.”

Different sources I read claim the young nation was generally happy with the result, which I find a bit hard to believe. The WR (1) showed the federal government’s “superiority complex” and (2) no doubt caused States’ Rights advocates (including Republicans such as Jefferson and Madison) to grow even more uncomfortable with the increasing scope of the federal government.

So—was George Washington a tyrant? Maybe that’s too strong a word, but he certainly believed in stealing other people’s property. I guess that makes him a thief.